5 ms·

Actually, this strategy works for google. Google enters these markets and then kills it for any possible future competitors. In the short run, it's a loss, in t

by Qahlel 4y ago

Actually, this strategy works for google. Google enters these markets and then kills it for any possible future competitors. In the short run, it's a loss, in the long run, you nullify new possible competitors.

manimino 4y ago
A better strategy would be to win the markets and profit from them.
- staticassertion 4y ago
  lol yes, the uh "traditional" approach is just... discover market, deliver product, profit. This "new" strategy of "deliver product, lose money, shut product down" seems like it may not work well long term.
harha 4y ago
That only plays out if you offer anything to customers once the competitors are gone. Also: there’s still PlayStation, Xbox and even Apple Arcade doing perfectly fine in this space
- roody15 4y ago
  Is Apple Arcade doing fine? In my small world I don’t know a single person who uses it.
  - avianlyric 4y ago
    Still doing better than Stadia will be after shutting down, assuming this rumour pans out. At least with Apple you know the service is gonna hang around for awhile, even if it doesn’t set the world alight.
  - harha 4y ago
    Looks like overall Apple subscriptions have solid growth. [0] I use it after I got bored of Netflix and other programs, because it’s ad and in-app purchase free and loads quickly on all devices. The games are obviously not the best, but then again the PS4 games I have don’t really justify the long start up time and I don’t have enough spare hours for Civilization. [0]: https://www.macrumors.com/2022/07/28/apple-860-million-paid-subscribers/ https://www.macrumors.com/2022/07/28/apple-860-million-paid-...
  - vineyardmike 4y ago
    I have arcade through their Apple One subscription and uh I think sometimes my family tries to buy a game and it’s free so that’s nice? But i don’t know anyone who intentionally uses it as a library. I assume that it’s just a nice way to redirect money to devs they like in a rare scheme to appease their game dev partners.
conradfr 4y ago
Geforce Now seems to be doing alright.
- hiptobecubic 4y ago
  GFN solved stadia's main problem by integrating with Steam.
- OJFord 4y ago
  It also pre-dated Stadia by some number of years. (I agree with you, if that's not clear: it didn't even create/define the market or take in any way significantly away from the incumbent.)
ctvo 4y ago
> Actually, this strategy works for google. Google enters these markets and then kills it for any possible future competitors. In the short run, it's a loss, in the long run, you nullify new possible competitors. They're no longer in the market. Now others are also slow to enter the market, in this case video game streaming as a service, and it's good for Google? This new product market isn't a core competency for Google and only tangentially fits into their wider portfolio. This 5D chess is quite the take. How about this instead? Google isn't a great product company. The work of making a product good isn't the same as the work of solving the engineering challenges to launch a product. Google overwhelmingly enjoys and excels at the latter, not the constant iteration and polish and listening to stakeholders of the former. Edit: To expand on this a little. Stadia no doubt received a lot of buyin internally from engineers because of the technical challenges. Keeping latency low, potentially hardware level challenges to running / rendering the games at scale and optimizing for costs, etc. I bet many promotions were given for the various contributions. Now that it's launched, the not so fun work that won't get much recognition due to Google's culture, but is important: - Iterate on the user experience - Iterate on performance: latency, frame rates, streaming quality. Potentially add support for higher resolutions, etc.. - Fix bugs, keep it running - Work with video game publishers, large and small, on licensing agreements. Since Stadia only has a small market share, Google has to go to them. This isn't a position Google likes to be in. - Work with video game developers on the SDK or other technical challenges. Answer their questions. Get their buyin. Support them during development. This isn't a position Google likes to be in. The last two points are interesting. When was the last time, outside of an acquisition (YouTube, Android both acquired), Google actually built a successful platform? This is what Stadia needed to be.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- jfim 4y ago
  I'd phrase it differently. Google got lucky in the sense that they set out to build a search engine, someone said "hey why don't we do text ads," it made money, and they've been riding that ever since. They're the kind of company that drilled a few holes, found oil once, and is now drilling holes everywhere without understanding where oil comes from.
Karunamon 4y ago
In this case, I think that's a good thing in the long run. This entire class of game streaming product is as anti-customer as it's possible to be. It's basically the wet dream of DRM control freaks in the industry. If the death of stadia kills the category, stadia's impact was a net positive.
Aeolun 4y ago
Wut? Geforce NOW absolutely trampled Stadia. It was just no contest at all. And if Geforce Now goes under I retain all my games, because it’s all linked to Steam and Epic.
- msabalau 4y ago
  That being said, the user experience of Stadia is so much cleaner, GEforce now has much jank in linking accounts, staring up your instance, checking if a game you might buy is even supported, and then deciding the storefront to get it from if it is. But I still prefer Geforce for exactly the reason you give--still having the games regardless of what happens with the streaming service.

by Qahlel 4y ago

manimino 4y ago

A better strategy would be to win the markets and profit from them.

staticassertion 4y ago
lol yes, the uh "traditional" approach is just... discover market, deliver product, profit. This "new" strategy of "deliver product, lose money, shut product down" seems like it may not work well long term.

harha 4y ago

That only plays out if you offer anything to customers once the competitors are gone. Also: there’s still PlayStation, Xbox and even Apple Arcade doing perfectly fine in this space

roody15 4y ago
Is Apple Arcade doing fine? In my small world I don’t know a single person who uses it.
- avianlyric 4y ago
  Still doing better than Stadia will be after shutting down, assuming this rumour pans out. At least with Apple you know the service is gonna hang around for awhile, even if it doesn’t set the world alight.
- harha 4y ago
  Looks like overall Apple subscriptions have solid growth. [0] I use it after I got bored of Netflix and other programs, because it’s ad and in-app purchase free and loads quickly on all devices. The games are obviously not the best, but then again the PS4 games I have don’t really justify the long start up time and I don’t have enough spare hours for Civilization. [0]: https://www.macrumors.com/2022/07/28/apple-860-million-paid-subscribers/ https://www.macrumors.com/2022/07/28/apple-860-million-paid-...
- vineyardmike 4y ago
  I have arcade through their Apple One subscription and uh I think sometimes my family tries to buy a game and it’s free so that’s nice? But i don’t know anyone who intentionally uses it as a library. I assume that it’s just a nice way to redirect money to devs they like in a rare scheme to appease their game dev partners.

conradfr 4y ago

Geforce Now seems to be doing alright.

hiptobecubic 4y ago
GFN solved stadia's main problem by integrating with Steam.
OJFord 4y ago
It also pre-dated Stadia by some number of years. (I agree with you, if that's not clear: it didn't even create/define the market or take in any way significantly away from the incumbent.)

ctvo 4y ago

> Actually, this strategy works for google. Google enters these markets and then kills it for any possible future competitors. In the short run, it's a loss, in the long run, you nullify new possible competitors. They're no longer in the market. Now others are also slow to enter the market, in this case video game streaming as a service, and it's good for Google? This new product market isn't a core competency for Google and only tangentially fits into their wider portfolio. This 5D chess is quite the take. How about this instead? Google isn't a great product company. The work of making a product good isn't the same as the work of solving the engineering challenges to launch a product. Google overwhelmingly enjoys and excels at the latter, not the constant iteration and polish and listening to stakeholders of the former. Edit: To expand on this a little. Stadia no doubt received a lot of buyin internally from engineers because of the technical challenges. Keeping latency low, potentially hardware level challenges to running / rendering the games at scale and optimizing for costs, etc. I bet many promotions were given for the various contributions. Now that it's launched, the not so fun work that won't get much recognition due to Google's culture, but is important: - Iterate on the user experience - Iterate on performance: latency, frame rates, streaming quality. Potentially add support for higher resolutions, etc.. - Fix bugs, keep it running - Work with video game publishers, large and small, on licensing agreements. Since Stadia only has a small market share, Google has to go to them. This isn't a position Google likes to be in. - Work with video game developers on the SDK or other technical challenges. Answer their questions. Get their buyin. Support them during development. This isn't a position Google likes to be in. The last two points are interesting. When was the last time, outside of an acquisition (YouTube, Android both acquired), Google actually built a successful platform? This is what Stadia needed to be.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
jfim 4y ago
I'd phrase it differently. Google got lucky in the sense that they set out to build a search engine, someone said "hey why don't we do text ads," it made money, and they've been riding that ever since. They're the kind of company that drilled a few holes, found oil once, and is now drilling holes everywhere without understanding where oil comes from.

Karunamon 4y ago

In this case, I think that's a good thing in the long run. This entire class of game streaming product is as anti-customer as it's possible to be. It's basically the wet dream of DRM control freaks in the industry. If the death of stadia kills the category, stadia's impact was a net positive.

Aeolun 4y ago

Wut? Geforce NOW absolutely trampled Stadia. It was just no contest at all. And if Geforce Now goes under I retain all my games, because it’s all linked to Steam and Epic.

msabalau 4y ago
That being said, the user experience of Stadia is so much cleaner, GEforce now has much jank in linking accounts, staring up your instance, checking if a game you might buy is even supported, and then deciding the storefront to get it from if it is. But I still prefer Geforce for exactly the reason you give--still having the games regardless of what happens with the streaming service.